David Horne wrote:
> Reid wrote:
>> Street food in London is prepared by people with no access to running
>> water, think about it. I wouldn't touch a street burger or hotdog with a
>> bargepole.
I wouldn't call what you find in London street food. It's just casual
vendors mainly targeting drunk people coming out of bars. Street food is
what's been done for centuries.
> It might be different now, but when I was in Delhi, _locals_ told me not
> to eat food off the street- it made them ill as well, so they said. As a
> result, I didn't.
You have to go where the locals go.
That said, I had some amusing conversation with locals in India who insisted
that it was not possible to travel in India for any less money than one
could in the USA or Europe. "One must stay in hotels of a certain standard
in order to be safe," I was told, "and this standard will be costing you
$150 per night in Delhi and in London." These are the same people who would
insist that street food was "out of the question" when we were going around
town.
So it's definitely possible for locals to be out of touch!
> It's demonstrably true that some restaurants have appalling hygeine, but
> so do some street vendors.
Yes - difference is that the appalling hygiene at those street vendors is
readily visible to all, and people then avoid them. Furthermore, they depend
far more on regular custom than restaurants targeting tourists (who are
usually in town for a few days) so local knowledge about their ongoing
safety is more pronounced.
miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/ |
|
|
|